If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Rule V

Yeah thanks, I know that. I just put him because it is that it is still a spot you need to account for. I dont think they'll waste a spot on someone like reegie corona because there are probably far better options when looking this far out.

Re: Rule V

I think you have to add Banuelos, Warren and Phelps. Those three have been legit prospects and could be in the majors next year. Joseph and Mitchell have earned spots as well. Venditte and Adams I would leave off if theirs a number crunch. Adams I don't think gets picked, he's always hurt and hasn't really done anything might sneak through. Venditte will get picked, but he's just not worth a spot, IMO and should be returned once the novelity wears off

Re: Rule V

Originally Posted by TheHugeUnit2

I think you have to add Banuelos, Warren and Phelps. Those three have been legit prospects and could be in the majors next year. Joseph and Mitchell have earned spots as well. Venditte and Adams I would leave off if theirs a number crunch. Adams I don't think gets picked, he's always hurt and hasn't really done anything might sneak through. Venditte will get picked, but he's just not worth a spot, IMO and should be returned once the novelity wears off

Yea I agree although I'd be worried about Adams getting picked. I think he could be a precautionary protect similar to guys like Mesa and Suttle who were protected in past years before they needed to be. Totally agree on Venditte, no way he doesn't get picked if for nothing other than the novelty. That said would he stick? I doubt it. Although with a lack of lefties in the system he might be worth protecting as you know Cashman is not going to go out and sign another 4M per year reliever (or any high/moderate priced reliever for that matter). I guess it depends how many spots there are though as you are right if the team is going to take a risk with any of these guys it will be these two.

Re: Rule V

Where are you getting your contract info? Cots doesn't list an option for Martin, Soriano has an opt out rather than mutual options, and all the other salaries here are wrong for 2012.

Martin doesn't have a team option in the usual sense, but he is under the team's control. He's arbitration-eligible. However, the salary is wrong - performance bonuses brought him up to $5.375M (if I figured it correctly, which I probably didn't.)

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.

Re: Rule V

The process of deciding who to keep and who to let go off the 40-man could be interesting this season. Obviously guys like Ayala and Wade performed very well this season, but I am not sure that performance is something that is sustainable - which we saw in the last week of the season and the playoffs with Ayala. I am assuming that both are free agents at this point anyway, so their spots will open temporarily, at least. Here are some of my thoughts:

Pitchers:

Keep one of Laffey or Valdes, but not both. I would prefer Valdes. (1 spot)
Colon, Proctor, Mitre and Marte are allowed to leave - though I am not against minor league deals (4 spots)
Posada should retire (1 spot)
Andruw Jones is a FA but could be resigned and must be replaced (0 spots)
Eric Chavez will likely retire - could be replaced by Nunez/Pena - (1 spot)
Corona is redundant - (1 spot)
We don't need all of Dickerson, Maxwell, Curtis, Golson - pretty sure Golson is out of options and Dickerson could be as well. Not sure about the other 2. (at least 1 spot)

Based on that, we have 2 or 3 open spots (depending on what is done with the Outfielders) and the big guys to protect are David Adams, David Phelps, DJ Mitchell and Dan Brewer. Corban Joseph may be eligible as well.

A case could be made to move Cervelli, who has trade value, or Laird, who is really redundant as well, though both are young and potentially productive.

Re: Rule V

Originally Posted by VTYankeesFan2

. . .
Based on that, we have 2 or 3 open spots (depending on what is done with the Outfielders) and the big guys to protect are David Adams, David Phelps, DJ Mitchell and Dan Brewer. Corban Joseph may be eligible as well.

A case could be made to move Cervelli, who has trade value, or Laird, who is really redundant as well, though both are young and potentially productive.

Interesting decisions for sure.

I think Cervelli is totally under-appreciated. He's a very solid backstop & he's demonstrated some situational hitting skills that are both useful & rare. He seemed to be developing a little more pop in his bat as well towards the end of the season & before Nick Markakis head-hunted him. Hope he's ok, & that he's still a Yankee come spring.

I think both Dan Brewer and Brandon Laird could be packaged in deals if the right one(s) came along as they both seem redundant in the bigger picture. I think Laird's a pretty terrific player but I don't see any room for him here, & I guess the same thing can be said for CoJo. Could we acquire more/better pitchers for these guys?

I think the three you selected to be protected of David Adams, David Phelps, & DJ Mitchell are about right, but Adams injury history might lead the Yankees to risk leaving him unprotected & hoping no other club selects him. If he could just get/stay healthy, Adams is a big-league ballplayer.

I hate the rule-V draft, but it can reward the club w/a disciplined/observant scouting staff.

Re: Rule V

Originally Posted by Jax Teller

Why do you consider Laird to be a terrific player?

Sorry for not getting back to you; I just saw your post.

He's a fundamentally sound glove at 3b w/a very good arm, versatile enough to play the other corner infield spot, even can fill in at corner outfield if needed, & the dude raked when he played in Trenton in 2010.

He hasn't really duplicated his hitting #'s in his season & a quarter in Scranton/Wilkes-Barre, & he looked a little lost at times down there this past year, but I think he's better than those #'s indicate. Obviously, he doesn't get to the show if his #'s don't improve over his Scranton results, but he's very capable of duplicating if not exceeding his Trenton season up at Scranton, & if he does so, some team will give him his shot.

Brandon is the kind of player who flies under the radar because he's not a hyped prospect & he doesn't have the kind of ability that leaps out at you, but I thought he was a very good ballplayer when I saw him play at Trenton, one who could develop into a very pleasant surprise for some team looking for a solid low cost productive bat to lengthen their lineup. Obviously, he's not a guy you build a club around, but he's more than capable of holding his own & being a real nice piece for a lot of teams to have. Who knows, perhaps circumstances play out in such a way that he somehow gets further playing time in the Bronx & he really takes advantage of it & he becomes a much hotter commodity somewhere down the road.

Re: Rule V

Not to rain on your parade or anything, but Laird isn't a terrific player. He is a very good solid player tho. I had no idea he was that good with the glove, he was just rated as the best defensive 3B in the entire minors by BA which was surprising cause I always viewed him as a bat first type of guy. Now he would appear as a Pena type, good defense but his bat doesn't seem that good.

Re: Rule V

Originally Posted by TheHugeUnit2

Not to rain on your parade or anything, but Laird isn't a terrific player. He is a very good solid player tho. I had no idea he was that good with the glove, he was just rated as the best defensive 3B in the entire minors by BA which was surprising cause I always viewed him as a bat first type of guy. Now he would appear as a Pena type, good defense but his bat doesn't seem that good.

Agreed Laird is not likely to be a quality major league hitter. He doesn't make enough contact and he doesn't have enough patience. He's got decent power, but not enough to make up for the rest of his game. With much improved defense though he could potentially be a nice bench player, unlikely he'll be anything more.

Re: Rule V

Originally Posted by TheHugeUnit2

Not to rain on your parade or anything, but Laird isn't a terrific player. He is a very good solid player tho. I had no idea he was that good with the glove, he was just rated as the best defensive 3B in the entire minors by BA which was surprising cause I always viewed him as a bat first type of guy. Now he would appear as a Pena type, good defense but his bat doesn't seem that good.

Semantics, Unit. I happen to use superlatives when talking about baseball prospects, chicks, & music that I like, etc., & I'm more the curmudgeon w/regard to politicians, official investigations, corporations, most pop stars, overhyped & priced everything, etc. I didn't mean it to be a full-scale endorsement that Laird is the next Mike Schmidt although I'm not saying he can't or won't be either (please people, don't accuse me of saying he's the next Mike Schmidt now, because I haven't). Like they say, that's why they play the game. IMO, his minor league sample size is still not large enough to say either way that he can't do anything except obviously he's never going to be a base stealer.

I hadn't heard that BA thought so highly of his defense, so kudos to Brandon on that one, & yeah, I was impressed w/his glove & his arm when I saw him play & I was also impressed w/his general presence on the field & in the lineup. I think he's more than just a utility guy off the bench but time will tell. At 24 years old, he's still got a lot to learn & a ways to go, & he's gotta start to make it happen sooner rather than later, but from where I sat, he did look like a pretty terrific young ballplayer to me.

Re: Rule V

I agree with the folks who think Laird is a keeper. He has much better hands than I was always reading about. I always thought he was a better defensive player than given credit for, based on what I saw of him in Trenton a couple of years ago. His bat is OK. He will strikeout a lot, and will never be one of those high OBP guys, but I think if he played semi-regularly, he would hit better than we saw in his brief Sept. time in the Bronx.

Not sure how he handles 1B, or the corner OF slots, but if he does, he is one of those "super" utility guys that all teams could use. Tampa has a few with Rodriguez, etc. Yankees could have a couple with Laird and Nunez.

Re: Rule V

tomrrow is the deadline, 6 open spots. RAB thinks they'll add Phelps, Mitchell and Z. Almonte. I agree with the first two without a doubt. Almonte I suppose as well. I thought Banuelos needed to be added but I guess I'm just ignorant. Pat V I could see being added, but I still don't think he'll be anything more than a sideshow.

Re: Rule V

Re: Rule V

Originally Posted by Yankees1962

Yanks protected Adams, Joseph, Z. Almonte, Phelps and D.J. Mitchell.

The only surprise is Joseph, since I didn't even realize he was eligible. But obviously he has to be protected. Not surprised with Adams, I had a feeling the Yanks wouldnt expose him to the draft given his hitting ability.

Re: Rule V

Originally Posted by wang+cano=future

The only surprise is Joseph, since I didn't even realize he was eligible. But obviously he has to be protected. Not surprised with Adams, I had a feeling the Yanks wouldnt expose him to the draft given his hitting ability.

Joseph turned 20, some months after being drafted out of high school, so age is a factor when it comes to when you have to protect some kids from the Rule V draft.

Re: Rule V

Re: Rule V

Originally Posted by wang+cano=future

The only surprise is Joseph, since I didn't even realize he was eligible. But obviously he has to be protected. Not surprised with Adams, I had a feeling the Yanks wouldnt expose him to the draft given his hitting ability.

I'm curious. i don't really know much about him beyond the fact that his ankle injury supposedly was what killed the Cliff deal in 2010. But a 24 year old seems kind of old for A ball, was there really a risk he'd stick withsomeone next year if taken in rule 5?

Re: Rule V

Originally Posted by Yankee Tripper

I'm curious. i don't really know much about him beyond the fact that his ankle injury supposedly was what killed the Cliff deal in 2010. But a 24 year old seems kind of old for A ball, was there really a risk he'd stick withsomeone next year if taken in rule 5?